SynthesisPloS one2021
Intensive versus less-intensive antileukemic therapy in older adults with acute myeloid leukemia: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conventional therapy vs HMA or LDAC with or without venetoclax in older adults with AML: systematic review and meta-analysis.Blood advances · 2026Pooled it
- Intensive Versus Non-Intensive Therapy in Older Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Real-World Experience.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Comprehensive Age-Stratified Impact ofCancers · 2025Article
- Incorporation of a Comorbidity Index in Treatment Decisions for Elderly AML Patients Can Lead to Better Disease Management-A Single-Center Experience.Hematology reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 14 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
To compare the effectiveness and safety of intensive antileukemic therapy to less-intensive therapy in older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and intermediate or adverse cytogenetics, we searched the literature in Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL to identify relevant studies through July 2020. We reported the pooled hazard ratios (HRs), risk ratios (RRs), mean difference (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects meta-analyses and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Two randomized trials enrolling 529 patients and 23 observational studies enrolling 7296 patients proved eligible. The most common intensive interventions included cytarabine-based intensive chemotherapy, combination of cytarabine and anthracycline, or daunorubicin/idarubicin, and cytarabine plus idarubicin. The most common less-intensive therapies included low-dose cytarabine alone, or combined with clofarabine, azacitidine, and hypomethylating agent-based chemotherapy. Low certainty evidence suggests that patients who receive intensive versus less-intensive therapy may experience longer survival (HR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99), a higher probability of receiving allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (RR 6.14; 95% CI, 4.03-9.35), fewer episodes of pneumonia (RR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.06-0.98), but a greater number of severe, treatment-emergent adverse events (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.03-1.75), and a longer duration of intensive care unit hospitalization (MD, 6.84 days longer; 95% CI, 3.44 days longer to 10.24 days longer, very low certainty evidence). Low certainty evidence due to confounding in observational studies suggest superior overall survival without substantial treatment-emergent adverse effect of intensive antileukemic therapy over less-intensive therapy in older adults with AML who are candidates for intensive antileukemic therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.